October 6, 2010

A CBSNews/New York Times poll conducted in mid-September found that only half the 18-29 year olds are registered to vote and just 55 percent of them say they will definitely vote in 2010. Moreover, a mere 15 percent of young people say they are paying “a lot of attention” to the election. By comparison, 84 percent of voters over 64 say they will definitely vote, and 50 percent say they are paying a lot of attention to the election.

Whereas young people favor Democrats by as much as 10 to 20 percentage points in most polls, among seniors, the most reliable of voters, Republicans hold an 11 point advantage over the Democrats.

One is tempted to think that if only more young people would vote, the Democrats would have it made. But the young people who say they favor Democrats also aren't paying attention. They have to get interested before they'll be motivated to vote, and we don't know what they'd think after they paid attention.

It's not surprising that young people who are floating along on the political periphery will say "Democrat" when asked which party they favor. What have they been paying attention to? Their teachers? Their friends? Presumably a lot of young people are for the good things the Democrats are supposed to be for. And so many nice celebrities seem to be Democrats. And there are those friends who go cold and sneer at the suggestion that anyone is an evil Republican.

When you're young, usually you want to get along. You want to be liked. But do you care about politics? Do you really know who to vote for? Apparently not, or you'd vote.

Now, if these young people got around to paying attention and studying the issues to the point where they really were interested and motivated to vote, would they still be Democrats? Would they still be young?

The fact that what is today called liberalism (which is actually quite illiberal) is perpetually more popular among the young, those who have yet to learn all that their elders know, doesn't really quite jive with the universal belief of liberals that they're more intelligent or educated than their conservative counterparts.

But as we discussed on an earlier thread: The Democrats might lose their advantage among 22 to 26 year olds -- many of whom have high college debt and no job and have had to grow up a little more quickly than they'd planned.

To be young is to be stupid: I was, you was, we all was. A young person is a stupid mark: the perfect target for the snake-oil the Dems pedal. What a blessing that the young, for the mostpart, can't be bothered to vote.

I am not surprised at this, at all. It was cool to be in favor of Obama. Everyone was doing it, and you could show you coolness by voting for the first biracial, non-partisan Presidential candidate. That is, of course, what everyone wants.

But then, the cognitive dissonance kicks in. What do the Democrats do with all their support? They burden them and their grandchildren with debt to pay off all their important constituents, such as government employees. And, it turns out to be the most racist and partisan Administration of our life times.

And who is getting hit with the individual mandate? Some of the younger voters who were a large part of the uninsured because they still believed themselves to be bullet proof.

Much easier to just get drunk or stoned before the election and skip voting, than face the fact that last time around being cool was the stupid choice, and likely making the sort of life mistakes that they would like to forget.

Voting Democrat takes no personal discipline, forethought or responsibility whatsoever; it offers the seemingly endless opportunity to live at someone else's expense; it offers the opportunity to strike a moral pose; it is the path of least resistance; it's all highs and no lows. OF COURSE young voters would cast more votes for Democrats.

I have a feeling a lot of those young people not paying attention are either in school or living with Mom and Dad (or both). It's easy to be a Lefty when somebody else pays the bills.

Pasta makes a good point about the 22 - 26 year olds, but another stat amplifies it. Youth unemployment is stated as 25% (black youth unemployment is quoted at 45%). If this is based from the bogus 9.6% used by the Administration as an aggregate unemployment, it's probably more, so a lot of young people are having a very hard time finding a job. What the actual numbers of the youth vote turn out to be will probably turn on those numbers.

One also needs to factor in that Obamacare is paid in large pay by forcing (universal coverage) the young to get gold plated healthcare coverage and NOT allowing them to pay the low prices that their risk (community pricing)should allow.

If they really understood how big of a harness the government has already put on their future earning potential they'd riot in the streets and vote out every last Democrat and spendthrift Republican.

The boomers, perhaps the most destructive generation in American history, have run up the young people's credit cards to the limit, and the boomers will soon die and leave the bill to said young generation.

They are already financially toast and apparently, college education notwithstanding, they don't even know it.

I remember when you had to be 21 years of age to vote. That was back when we had a draft, and everyone said that if you were old enough to be drafted, you were old enough to also vote. Since we don't have a draft anymore, we need to raise the age to vote back to 21.

My experience is that younger voters tend to be more motivated by social issues than pocketbook ones...gay marriage, abortion, the young who are motivated to participate in politics are motivated by causes, and their opinion on the more bread and butter issues of governing tends to align with whatever cause they find amenable.

I think another factor is the young government aid because they're poor, and they make the mistake of thinking that the way they are now is the way they will always be.

I'm torn between two explanations -- As libido wanes with age, an interest in politics takes its place (suggested by SteveR), or that life for young people is abundantly rich, and only as we experience successive losses as we get older do we feel that Democrats want to take away all our money. Here the conversion is complete when Dickens' Christmas Carol seems the story of a sound man gone soppy rather than a tale of redemption.

This link. has a data table (about one third down) that does verify that young folks are less knowledgeable.

But, the West and the Northeast are the most informed areas, and they're also (on average) more D than the South, which has the least informed Americans. So, we can't say that better informed young folks would definitely be Rs.

The young people who say they favor Democrats also aren't paying attention.

Nothing new there. And it should be added that Democrats - of any age group - don't pay attention. They "don't care" (as they've told me countless times) and also don't follow the news ("too negative") but insist on putting the rest of us under the Dem's boot because, right or wrong on the issues, they're voting blindly for the Left.

One of my Lefty friends just called to ask for an explanation of the Tea Party: What's it about? Who's in it? What do they want? Information he could've had a year ago, if he'd bothered to read something other than the NYT, and watched more then MSNBC. The upside? He, now, considers me a trustworthy conservative to ask. That's new, considering I was the Satan-who-must-be-defeated just a year or two ago.

Finally, I'd like to add that that call wouldn't have come - and this political moment wouldn't be happening - without The Macho Response. Not my blog, of course, but my attitude: The "I'm mad as Hell and I'm not going to take it anymore!" indignation of the Tea Party has been everything I've been calling for - and dreaming of - because it works. Liberals can't, and don't want to, fight - they want us to just fold, because (just like with AGW) they had a consensus - amongst themselves - that they were going to use as a bully club. Well, as I predicted when I started TMR, that shit wasn't going to work.

Now, if the focus could shift to NewAge as well as politics - where Oprah, Deepak, whoever, also gets booed as Democrats who led us astray - I will die a truly happy man.

They pay attention to their hearts and vote accordingly. And when they do pay attention to the outer political world, what they perceive there is weighed against the content of their heart, which, as in the book of Spells of Going Forth by Day, is to weigh the content of one's heart against a feather.

They being 18-29 yr. olds generally, and there being so many exceptions as to make such generalizations nearly meaningless. But this does bring me to a thought that occurred which I found cynical. Pouring over numbers is one thing, aggregating them another, but to divide out with the intent to segregate with the intent to prevail or to conquer (youth vote, black vote, latin vote, woman's vote, hetero vote, gay vote, veteran's vote, retiree's vote, Asian vote, pet-owner's vote, whatever) runs counter to 'united we stand.' After having successfully divided according to identity and grievances, it can hardly be expected for those groups to be driven to vote cheerfully in agreement.

AllenS said...I remember when you had to be 21 years of age to vote. That was back when we had a draft, and everyone said that if you were old enough to be drafted, you were old enough to also vote. Since we don't have a draft anymore, we need to raise the age to vote back to 21.

Alternatively, we could bring back the draft but only draft those 55+ and raise the voting age the same.

The news source that has the highest percentage of the most informed Americans was a tie between Stewart/Colbert and MSM Newspapers. I would assume that a good chunk of the extremely informed viewers of Stewart/Colbert are both young and supportive of D politics.

Where is the evidence that suggests better informed young folks would necessarily become R voters?

Ole', Ole". That was as circular an argument as I have ever seen. You are the master of circularity. But where can we break into the circle? Personal Popularity may be the answer. Now who is most the popular these days? (hint: it is not Hillary).

Christopher, I suppose you want to give Michelle Obama a pass on the "first time I really felt proud of my country" because, you know, she was just expressing a personal belief.

Its just as stupid a remark as Demint's. Then again if you're having difficulty with the concept of having a personal belief versus proposing legislation to enforce that personal belief, then dunno what to say.

The poor attendance at last week's DC demonstration is another indicator of low interest among the young. How many college students live within a four-hour drive of DC? Assuming that the demonstration was publicized on campuses and given the perfect weather, I expected lots of college students to make a day of it, but they didn't.

I taught at a middle school for four years. One of the the female teachers there was young and attractive. During that time, she had two out-of-wedlock children. When she wasn't pregnant, she wore black leather miniskirts and spiked heels to school. She might have been a perfectly good teacher, I don't know, but I'm sure the boys in her classes had trouble concentrating on their studies. I know I would have.

At their age the only inept bureaucracy they've had to deal with is the one at their university, and the only nonsensical regulations they've encountered are the ones that their high school and college have put up.

The notion that dealing with government bureaucracies and federal regulations is even worse simply doesn't register.

Hoosier, I'm just poking at the double standard here. When Democrats say something stupid, it's held up as proof they hate America. When Republicans say something stupid, it's ignored. If it can't be ignored, then it's dismissed as a stupid statement that has no meaning beyond the fact that the speaker erred in uttering it.

Maybe we should limit the right to vote to taxpaying citizens and those who are on welfare (tax eaters) don't get to vote themselves ever more benefits.

Better yet, how about passing a basic civics course and the ability to recognize the people that you are voting for. Most people on the street couldn't recognize the Vice President from the local garbage collector. Actually, they probably CAN recognize the garbage collector.

I firmly believe that bond issues that are financed through property taxes should ONLY be voted on by property owners.

1jpb said: "The news source that has the highest percentage of the most informed Americans was a tie between Stewart/Colbert and MSM Newspapers. I would assume that a good chunk of the extremely informed viewers of Stewart/Colbert are both young and supportive of D politics.

Where is the evidence that suggests better informed young folks would necessarily become R voters?"

Hoosier, I'm just poking at the double standard here. When Democrats say something stupid, it's held up as proof they hate America. When Republicans say something stupid, it's ignored.

Pete, to revisit this, Republicans get slammed for dumb remarks all the time, even when they didn't say them ;-) (I can see Russia from my house!)

Kent Lott was pretty much ostracized for his remarks. Christ they made an industry out of it for Bush so to say that GOP gaffes aren't given the same treatment as Dem ones suggests a complete disassociation from reality.

As for Michelle's comment, well lets assume that someone growing up in a nice middle class family who attends Princeton, Harvard and has done pretty darn well for themselves doesn't really hate America but is rather like most spoiled brats who simply don't appreciate the opportunities available to them.

Maybe we should limit the right to vote to taxpaying citizens and those who are on welfare (tax eaters) don't get to vote themselves ever more benefits.

Better yet, how about passing a basic civics course and the ability to recognize the people that you are voting for. Most people on the street couldn't recognize the Vice President from the local garbage collector. Actually, they probably CAN recognize the garbage collector.

I firmly believe that bond issues that are financed through property taxes should ONLY be voted on by property owners.

I agree with everything here. Too bad we live in a country where the parasites outnumber us.

Haha. I guess we can press a button for a Republican so we can find out what they want to cut.

Doesn't matter anyway does it? Honestly I hope the polls are completely skewed wrong and your side not only remains in control but takes even more seats. Why?

Because like most drug addicts or alcoholics you need to be face down in your own vomit and feces to finally realize you have a problem and you either do what's necessary to fix yourself or you die. Giving your side another two years of complete power will pretty much get us to that point and then maybe the electorate will find the folks necessary to do the job.

Save your LOL cause I really honestly could care less what you or like minded care or say. I've listened to it for two years now and it sounds like the adults on the Peanuts cartoons.

"Where is the evidence that suggests better informed young folks would necessarily become R voters?"

If you run the UC Berkeley GSS tool(http://sda.berkeley.edu/archive.htm) using education level as a proxy and filter for 18-29 year olds, independents shift pretty heavily from Independent to Republican as they get more education (an imperfect proxy, granted). The effect tapers off after bachelors degree.

The GSS data is interesting, particularly in light of all the stories you hear about leftist professors indoctrinating students. I'm not saying there aren't attempts to do that, but based on the data, if college is going to have an effect on your politics, it's probably going to shift them to the right, not the left.

Hoosier, I'll grant you that in the big wide world, there are plenty who are ready to pounce on stupid remarks by Republicans.

Here, not so much.

The issue is that here, on these threads, the stupid remarks of Democrats are routinely trotted out as proof of what all Democrats think.

Christine O'Donnell's stupid remarks get some attention -- but no one here (not even Garage) uses them as evidence of what Republicans think.

On another thread today, when challenged ("I don't remember anyone saying that the govt could block the mosque because of the disturbing message") I posted a link to Paladino saying that he would "use the power of eminent domain to stop the mosque."

And what response did I get?

New Ham claiming that "Paladino never said he wouldn't let the mosque be built."

Yeah, because no one could could hear Mrs. O's statement about the "first time I really felt proud of my country...", and then deMint's statement that "single women who sleep with their boyfriends should not be allowed to teach", and think one statement was stupid and the other not stupid, without holding to a double standard. Because the standard for whether things can be analogized to one another is whether I find them both stupid, and all decent people agree with me on what is and is not a stupid statement.

Seriously, do you even think about what words and phrases mean before you throw 'em into the party mix?

The issue is that here, on these threads, the stupid remarks of Democrats are routinely trotted out as proof of what all Democrats think.

No, that's your issue, for the nonce, which is different from your issue in your last comment on this thread, which was different from your issue on the comment before that, and which will be different from your issue on your next comment.

To whit: Biden on the budget. Sure, he deserves to be mocked.

But so does Boehner on the Pledge.

And? So?

The spirit mocketh where it listeth, peter. Are you expecting some equality of outcome in mockery for all venues or something?

Dave, the problem for many of the voters who are motivated this November 2 is that they live in uncompetitive districts.

You can be mad as hell, but if you live in MN-4, WI-2, or any of the other 327 non-competitive House districts, your vote for Representative doesn't matter much, thanks to a system of safe seats designed to keep incumbents in power.

I wish we could find a way to make more House seats competitive. My deep blue district is surrounded by deep red. It's like they do it on purpose.

DBQ, exactly. Both parties are complicit. It's how they game the system. I have a vague hope that perhaps someone will come up with a way to craft more reasonable districts, but I realize that it's a Quixotic dream.

Why then can't Republicans just come and and say what specifically needs to be cut is still a big mystery,

OK.

To start with, I would cut 10% from every governmental agency. Surely there is at LEAST 10% slop and wasteage in every department. They could EASILY cut without even touching the sacred cows of health insurance and lush pensions. They may have to cut hours, cut personnel, furlough workers, tighten their belts, cut out some of the 'perks' of the jobs like free use of government cars, fancy lunches. All this could be done without much significant impact on the end user/taxpayer.

Second. Merge all programs and departments that are duplicate or redunant.

Get RID of Davis Bacon wages, which is nothing less than another way to make sure that Unions get their grubby paws on all jobs. Eliminate the requirement in smaller jobs (under 1 million) and relax the requirement in projects that are done in areas where there are no Unions or let the prevailing wage of the geographic area prevail.

Immediately begin all new employees of the government in a 401K contribution plan instead of a defined benefit plan. The DBPs are completely unsustainable.

Immediately have ALL government employees pay a share of their health insurance premiums. Even as small a figure as 2 to 5% would save BILLIONS of dollars and it isn't that much for the employee since it comes out pre taxed from payroll.

So far I've probably save the tax payer hundreds of billions of dollars.

"The overwhelming number of teachers pay nothing toward full-family, full-coverage health benefits, not just for the years of their employment, but for life," Christie said at a rally in Raritan on Wednesday. "I asked them to contribute one-and-a-half percent and was told I was destroying public education

In the Community Services District where I am a Board Member the District was paying 100% of governmenat family health insurance for all employees...even part time. That was about $1350 a month or $16,200 a year PER employee. Multiply that by millions of public employees nationwide.

Those that do pay something towards their insurance pay a very small percentage.

public workers and employee unions in at least two states -- Michigan and New Jersey -- have filed lawsuits against the states for forcing them to contribute more toward the costs of their health benefits. For example, in Michigan, a plan to require state workers to pay 3% of their monthly earnings in the next fiscal year toward a trust fund for retiree health benefits met with resistance

Not only is this true for current employees. Retirees pay nothing as well. Probably not that much we can do about it because of contract law......but we can put a screeching halt to it now and in the future.

BILLIONS of dollars of savings. Boo hoo. They might have to pay something. Cry me a freaking river.

My ex-brother-in-law was a civil servant with the use of a government car. Ronnie took it away, so my ebil bought a car and charged his work-related mileage to the government. The government reimbursements paid for his car within two years. Tell me how the government saved money there.

Actually young folks I know have been paying attention to the change in college loans- for the better, as well as the increase in their health care coverage, and as a result are paying more attention to the Democrats' vision for the country. True most of them in our college seem to get their news from social media and listen more to Comedy Central then Beck or Rush, but this seems to give them a fresh approach to the old ideologies.

The Roadmap, in the form CBO analysed, would result in less Federal spending on Medicare and Medicaid as well as lower tax revenues....On balance, those changes would reduce federal deficits and federal debt

I remember watching Frank Reynolds when I was less than 10, with my parents. My parents were born 1930 and before, which makes me a contemporary, in a manner, of baby boomers. Though I was only born in 1970.

My parents were depression era generation, so to speak.

I watched my older siblings be far more liberal than myself,the youngest, and could not understand why.

I was never "young" enough to be that liberal.

I was never "young" enough to flinch at patriotism.

If anything I find a gulf between me and my contemporaries. A liberal at 20 and a conservative at 40?

I have loved America while being an information hound and regretting her mistakes at every discovery, yet always loving her, constitution, foibles...all. I couldn't stand the public school B.S. which has only become more egregious.

My 20 year old niece is an alien to me in her thinking mostly, so naive...How can a lesbian be so ready to defend an ascending islam?

I am more libertarian on matters, which I believe is the whole point of the constitution. Leave us alone to live our lives.

I know that, for real, I am young, but when I see these stories referring to the "young people" I tend to not associate myself from them. I don't really consider it the fact that I've "grown up," more like I was taught to be responsible and see it a duty and necessity to be so. The stories I hear of the "young people" sound so far from everything that is my life.

Why do I pay a separate tax for Medicare if it is part of the budget? I don't see any actual budget cutting except for Medicaid -- which will be replaced with a voucher to buy private insurance. More voodoo economics: allowing a health insurer to skim a commission will reduce the cost to the taxpayer. Yeah uhuh sure right.

Tell pogo he has to accept less money for an office visit and see what he says.

The issue is deeper than that. You graduate a mini-socialist just by listening to professors at school. The morality of free markets haven't been taught in over a generation.

Virtually all public employees are Democrats, as well as big business which is highly progressive for crony reasons. They believe that is how the world works.

It is a wonder that markets and limited government as a concept gets voted in at all.

I believe that any formal teaching, which is what Beck is really doing in his own way, is almost immediately attractive, because people are generally attracted both morally and philosophically to Randian thought.

They have just never heard it, and despite decades of preaching to the contrary, the message gains traction even when imperfectly espoused.

None of their panels includes a true, articulate free market advocate that understands the morality and economics of it.

I believe there is a huge market, perhaps larger than Fox, for a TV channel that views all the news 24/7 through a free market lens, with the left represented and debated on each and every discussion.

I also believe it would crush the MSM. Not even the WSJ is free market except for some of its editorial page. The elite can not imagine a small government world, partly because millions of the 'educated class' depends on gray bureaucracy and deliberately obfuscated regulation for their jobs.

Main Street doesn't work that way. You do good work on a handshake and put up your house as collateral for every idea you have. That's a market. That's freedom. Trying to mitigate that risk destroys it.